Potvin fires shot

[ezlot76]

During Tuesdays  game against the Hawks I was waiting for the spin control from announcers . I expected Goldstein to be proactive on it. Wasn't waiting for the shot from Denny. Out of nowhere he states if the players like Gallant so much why didn't they play better for him, or along those lines, don't remember exact quote. wow that caught me off guard 

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

@ezlot76

 

You know, for all his buffoonery in the broadcast booth, I do believe Mr. Potvin may have a point there......

[ezlot76]

5 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

@ezlot76

 

You know, for all his buffoonery in the broadcast booth, I do believe Mr. Potvin may have a point there......

I usually like Potvin, he's a Homer as most are (yours included^) but listenable. There are certainly worseems out there. Can't agree here though, team was playing hard, but not really point of my shock. was no reason to take shot at Gallant like that. Goldie would have said it is wouldn't have been as surprised . just sayin

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

10 minutes ago, ezlot76 said:

I usually like Potvin, he's a Homer as most are (yours included^) but listenable. There are certainly worseems out there. Can't agree here though, team was playing hard, but not really point of my shock. was no reason to take shot at Gallant like that. Goldie would have said it is wouldn't have been as surprised . just sayin

 

Well, if I read your post correctly, Potvin seemed to be taking a shot at the PLAYERS, not Gallant.

 

"...if they liked him so much, why didn't they play harder for him"

Seems like he is more insinuating the players perhaps could have done more to improve their record and perhaps this firing doesn't take place.

 

Now, unless something else was said by Potvin, sounds to me like he felt Gallant should have stayed on...........had his players come up with better results.

 

That all said, I have said and agreed with some others that I believe Gallant was a victim of circumstance....that is to say, management probably didn't really want him behind the bench any longer and were looking for a reason, any reason, no matter how big or small, to relieve him of his duties as head coach.

 

Maybe the Panthers really did play hard (I always felt for a few years that they are a club that usually does), but the results simply weren't there for management's / ownership's liking.

Though frankly speaking, a .500 record in the division they are in with the teams they play while missing two very key players (Huberdeau and Bjugstad) is understandable.

 

Still though, maybe management was thinking "Division lead or bust", in which case, Florida, as a team wasn't cutting it in their eyes. And voila! There is the excuse to wave bye bye to Sir Gallant.

But Potvin's comments, again if I am reading you correctly (and if nothing was omitted) seem more a shot at the players, not the coach.

[ruxpin]

16 minutes ago, ezlot76 said:

was no reason to take shot at Gallant like that

 

I get taking it that way, but I almost took it as a shot at the players.  "If you liked him, you should have played for him."

 

I don't even think that is fair, to be honest.  It's definitely not fair if he was taking a shot at Gallant, but they were working, I thought.  They have injuries, a 78 year old goalie (who is younger than their right winger), and a "revamped" defense that is more vamp than revamp.  

 

I'm not sure what more than just above .500  Potvin (who I actually generally like) or management were expecting.   A bit of time for the defense to gel a little and for the injured to come back, and the .500 would have actually been great as a launching point.

 

But, .500 isn't good enough when the Dolphins are in the playoff hunt.  With only 67% capacity for home games, they have to stay in the news.   Competitiveness be damned.

[ezlot76]

38 minutes ago, TropicalFruitGirl26 said:

 

Well, if I read your post correctly, Potvin seemed to be taking a shot at the PLAYERS, not Gallant.

 

"...if they liked him so much, why didn't they play harder for him"

Seems like he is more insinuating the players perhaps could have done more to improve their record and perhaps this firing doesn't take place.

 

Now, unless something else was said by Potvin, sounds to me like he felt Gallant should have stayed on...........had his players come up with better results.

 

That all said, I have said and agreed with some others that I believe Gallant was a victim of circumstance....that is to say, management probably didn't really want him behind the bench any longer and were looking for a reason, any reason, no matter how big or small, to relieve him of his duties as head coach.

 

Maybe the Panthers really did play hard (I always felt for a few years that they are a club that usually does), but the results simply weren't there for management's / ownership's liking.

Though frankly speaking, a .500 record in the division they are in with the teams they play while missing two very key players (Huberdeau and Bjugstad) is understandable.

 

Still though, maybe management was thinking "Division lead or bust", in which case, Florida, as a team wasn't cutting it in their eyes. And voila! There is the excuse to wave bye bye to Sir Gallant.

But Potvin's comments, again if I am reading you correctly (and if nothing was omitted) seem more a shot at the players, not the coach.

 

38 minutes ago, ruxpin said:

 

I get taking it that way, but I almost took it as a shot at the players.  "If you liked him, you should have played for him."

 

I don't even think that is fair, to be honest.  It's definitely not fair if he was taking a shot at Gallant, but they were working, I thought.  They have injuries, a 78 year old goalie (who is younger than their right winger), and a "revamped" defense that is more vamp than revamp.  

 

I'm not sure what more than just above .500  Potvin (who I actually generally like) or management were expecting.   A bit of time for the defense to gel a little and for the injured to come back, and the .500 would have actually been great as a launching point.

 

But, .500 isn't good enough when the Dolphins are in the playoff hunt.  With only 67% capacity for home games, they have to stay in the news.   Competitiveness be damned.

I see what both are saying about who the shot was at, and maybe you're right, but I took it as a shot at Gallant. Could be either but while not rememberingexact words it came off more that way. as far as team waiting for an excuse, definitely .  new owners cleaning house, from ticket sales to trainers to now coaches. 

 on other side , how they did this isn't going to help attendance . opposite I fear, never seen such unified opposition to firing and how done. and 67%. not a chance. we lucky to have 50, real stats not trumped up attendance .  If we don't win down here people don't come unfortunately , so if we don't go on lengthywin streak (we do have a few softer teams up on road trip) place will be empty. We have a very loyal core group of fans, just not enough of them

[ruxpin]

@ezlot76

 

The attendance.   Yeah, i got the numbers off some site (I'm on my phone now but pretty sure it was ESPN).   But I was stunned it was that high, based on what I see on TV I honestly would have gone 30-40%.

 

And I agree,  crap like his won't help.